Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

David B. Rosenbaum, Atty. No. 009819 Dawn L. Dauphine, Atty. No. 010833 Osborn Maledon P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 [email protected] [email protected] Telephone: (602) 640-9000 Michael L. Banks, Pro Hac Vice William J. Delany, Pro Hac Vice John Ferreira, Pro Hac pending Amy Promislo, Pro Hac Vice MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Telephone: (215) 963-5000 Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barbara Allen, Richard Dippold, Melvin Jones, Donald McCarty, Richard Scates and Walter G. West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, vs. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan and Plan Administrator of Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Defendants.

No. CV04-0424 PHX ROS

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF LODGING PROPOSED AMENDED ORDER

Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS

Document 126

Filed 11/02/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan and Plan Administrator of Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, give notice that they have lodged a proposed Amended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto. The proposed Amended Order is identical in all respects to the Order dated October 28, 2005, and entered on October 31, 2005 (Doc. #124), denying Defendants' motion for reconsideration and granting their alternative motion for interlocutory appeal, except that the proposed Amended Order adds the following language based on the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): ", the Court having determined under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) that the Court's summary judgment ruling in favor of Plaintiffs' on the anti-cutback claims in Doc. #71 and Doc. #77, and its denial of Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in this Order, involve a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from this order and from Doc. #71 and Doc. #77 may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Defendants request that the Court enter their proposed Amended Order to eliminate the possibility that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will reject an application for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b) for the lack of specific statutory language. See In re Vylene Enters., Inc., 968 F.2d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 1992); Paul G. Ulrich et al., Federal Appellate Practice: Ninth Circuit § 3.13 & n. 79 (2d ed. 1999). Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of November, 2005. OSBORN MALEDON P.A. By: s/David B. Rosenbaum David B. Rosenbaum Dawn L. Dauphine Osborn Maledon, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794
2 Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 126 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1105067

Michael L. Banks (Pro Hac Vice) William J. Delany (Pro Hac Vice) John G. Ferreira (Pro Hac Pending) Amy Promislo (Pro Hac Vice) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do certify that on November 2, 2005, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Susan J. Martin Jennifer Lynn Kroll Martin & Bonnett P.L.L.C. 3300 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2517 Attorney for Plaintiff s/Ann E. Blacketer Ann E. Blacketer

3 Case 2:04-cv-00424-ROS Document 126 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 3 of 3